Talking about women (bishops)

I had a bit of déjà-vu today. Meeting with an outside facilitator at the General Synod in small groups of around 20 reminded me of the indaba groups at the 2008 Lambeth Conference. And then, as now, people excluded from the conversations complained about 'secrecy' – clearly unable to distinguish between sinister scheming in the shadows and private conversations.

Sometimes people need to create the space in which to have a different sort of conversation than the ones normally conducted in public. When the General Synod comes to re-ignite the women bishops process, it clearly needs to begin in a different place from where it ended last November.

One of the problems for the Synod is that it is shaped by parliamentary models that are essentially adversarial, charging debates with a win-lose goal. This (a) means that parties establish and bolster their line before the debate and (b) leaves no room for individuals to change their mind on an issue in the course of an informed debate. It isn't a healthy way for the church to discern and shape its future.

The culture change requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential Address yesterday clearly needs to begin here.

So, today we met in groups and explored the experiences of the failed process of the last twelve years (and last November in particular), asking what might be learned for the process going forward. In my group we were honest, frank, respectful and, I think, courageous in facing reality. It has been an intense, but helpful day in general. And at least we weren't asked to do role-play…

Behind the emotive questions about experience and perceptions, however, there lurks a really hard question: can this circle actually be squared? Is it possible for the church to have bishops who are bishops who are bishops – rather than some bishops (female) who are, however politely expressed, less episcopal than other bishops? Is it possible to discriminate and not discriminate at the same time? Can a yes be simultaneously a no?

In one sense, we live by paradoxes, and a way through this conundrum should be detectable. At the moment it is not clear where this way might be found. And some think it is now time to be clear and honest about what is possible, what is achievable, and what might be regrettably necessary. This is a debate between a vision of a clear church with clear lines and identities… and a fuzzy church that can live with inadequacy and mess.

The beauty of indaba and what we did today is simply that it offers the space in which honest conversation can happen and we don't have to be watching over our shoulders to see how what is ventured might be reported. I can't yet see how we can square the circles regarding women bishops; but, I do think November's shock and today's process have a chance of creating a refreshed culture in which the sensitive issues can be addressed with humility, generosity and greater clarity.

We will see in Monday's debate if any difference has been made. I hope so.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

5 Responses to “Talking about women (bishops)”

Sadly,I have given up on trying to square circles: there are some opponents so clear that they will never ever accept women bishops that trying to accommodate them to the “revolution” of women exercising an undifferentiated ministry is illusory.

I have tried: perhaps they have too. We are reaching the point that some will go one way, others another and pretending otherwise is is just kidding ourselves.

Can a yes be simultaneously a no? Not according to that apostle Paul chap in 2 Corinthians:

Do I make my plans according to ordinary human standards, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ at the same time? As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been ‘Yes and No.’ For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not ‘Yes and No’; but in him it is always ‘Yes.’ For in him every one of God’s promises is a ‘Yes.’ For this reason it is through him that we say the ‘Amen’, to the glory of God.

Completely out of context, I know; but hey: just following Paul’s own example on that score. Let’s just say it’s time for the church to stop vacillating and say an unequivocal YES to women bishops.

There times when you have to say that it is better to have a schism for the sake of love than to insist on phony unity because of one’s lack of it.

There are times when differences are irreconcilable, and then its time to part. If the CofE decides to have women as bishops, then those who believe that female bishops are an ontological impossibility will continue to think that. How can they be in communion with someone, yet believe that the communion they receive is not communion but a fake substitute? KIf they say to female bishops “I do not believe you are what you think yourself to be”, it is a recipe for anger and offence all round.

So perhaps the synods of the CofE should accept this, and rather settle for a divorce that is as amicable as possible, dividing property and resources as appropriate.

If there is the ontological possibility of a woman priest and the ascent is a question of worldy power, I see no reason to skirt the issue and women priests should be given full episcopal authority, responsibilities and tasks as well as access to the Lambert buttons room.